A well publicised
case where a believer in Man Made Global Warming succeeded in his claim that his
beliefs qualifed for protection as a "Philosophical Belief" for the purpose of
the Employment Equality (Religion or Belief)
Regulations 2003 It is however
important to remember that he did not actually win his claim on the facts, that
still has to be heard by an Employment Tribunal, what he won was the right to
claim that his beliefs qualifed for protection under the regulations

Ghai v Newcastle City Council [2009] EWHC 978
(Admin)The High Court rejected a
claim by a British Hindu that preventing him from having an open air Cremation
infringed his rights to Freedom of Religion under Article 9 of the European
Convention on Human Rights however the Court of Appeal sidestepped the entire
Religious Freedom argument by holding that an open air cremation within a
building without a roof was not contrary to the law

(An Employment
Tribunal case where a Registrar of Marriages was discriminated against and
harassed by her Employers because she did not wish to perform Civil Partnerships
(sometimes called "Gay Marriage) para 50 of the ET judgement is especially
noticeable "This is a case where there is a direct
conflict between the legislative protection afforded to religion and belief and
the legislative protection afforded to sexual orientation .... One set of rights
cannot overrule the other set of rights) The decision of
the ET was subsequently overuled by the EAT and was then appealed to the
Court of Appeal who agreed with the EAT

Here the House of
Lords refused to allow the deportation of a woman and her son to Lebanon on the
basis that Shariah Law as applied in Lebanon would mean that the son would pass
to the custody of the Father and his family. In para 6 Lord Hope said
"Shari'a law as it is applied in Lebanon was created
by and for men in a male dominated society"

A case where a
Christian Employee lost her claim to be allowed to wear a visible Cross along
with her BA uniform. The case seems very difficult to reconcile with the
case of Sakira Singh and, worryingly where the EAT judgement
makes reference to the Sakira case it completely misrepresents it, in para 14
the Judge says of Sakira case " the claimant believed
that she was required by her religion to wear the Kara" but that
is contray to the findings of the Judge in the Sakira case para 29 "although the claimant is not obliged by her religion to
wear a Kara, it is clearly in her case extremely important indication of her
faith"which is exactly what the Christian Eweida
was claiming about her Cross. In its judgement the Court of Appeal simply
ignored the Sakira Singh decision.

A case where a Sikh
Schoolgirl won the right to wear the 'Kara' bracelet. The decision, on the face
of it, disagrees with the decisions in the BegumPlayfoot and X v Y
Schoolcases.
However those cases concerned Article 9 Freedom of Religion and
this case was argued on Religious and Racial Discrimination grounds and not on Article
9. It is also worth looking at the 1983 case of Mandla v Dowell Lee [1983] 2 AC
548 where the House of Lords held that it was
unlawful discrimination to stop a Sikh schoolboy wearing a Turban

A case involving the question
how you define who is a Jew. Notable for the astonishing fact that in the
EWHC case one of the Barristers involved relied on the Nazi "Nuremberg Laws" to bolster her
case. The judge expressed his "distaste" at even being expected to treat
the Nazi laws as "law" let alone be expected to base his decision on them, in
the event he found them of no relevance in his decision. The decison was
however reversed by the Court of Appeal in an extremely controversial EWCA
decision which found that the school was in fact being racist by applyng the
historiacl definition of Jweish as being either a convert or alternatively the
child of a Jewish mother. The case then went before the UK Supreme Court
who, by a 5-4 decision agreed with the Court of Appeal and therefore made the
astonishing decision that a Court ws better qualified than the Chief Rabbi to
decide whether or not someone is Jewish

(A strange, and
sad, case concerning the legal validity of an Islamic marriage ceremony which
took place over the phone with the "bride" being in Bangladesh and the
"bridegroom" being in England. Owing to the bridegroom being severely
mentally disabled the marriage was invalid but it is worth noticing that there
was nothing inherently illegal in such a "telephone" marriage though such
marriages are now apparently illegal in France)

(In this case a
sacred Bullock [Shambo] was kept in a Hindu Shrine in Wales. He was
diagnosed with Bovine TB and the Welsh Government decided he had to be
killed. In the High Court [EWHC] case it was decided that this would
breach the Hindus Article 9 rights but this decision was overturned by the Court
of Appeal [EWCA] and Shambo was taken away and killed)

(A case brought
under the The Employment Equality (Religion or Belief) Regulations 2003 where the Employment Appeals Tribunal upheld the
decision of a School to suspend a Muslim Teaching Assistant who refused to obey
an instruction to remove her face veil (Niqab) when in class. Interestingly
neither the EAT nor the Tribunal itself referred to the Begum or X cases in
making their decision)

( In the High Court [EWHC]
case it was held that a School was entitled to refuse to allow Muslim pupil,
Shabina Begum, to wear a Jilbab instead of the School Uniform
(which included an option for Muslim pupils to wear a Hijab). This decision was then overruled
in the Court of Appeal [EWCA] case and then reinstated in the House of Lords
[UKHL] case. The House of Lords were unanimous in rejecting the Court of
Appeals decision and did so in unusually strong terms. The case was brought
under Article 9 of the European Convention on Human
Rights and paras 23 & 24 of the House of
Lords decision contains a valuable summary of Article 9 decisions by the
European Court of Human Rights )